I wouldn't discount the usefulness of stats, but I agree that stats shouldn't be the gold standard of judging things. I admit that I find Blackfoot annoying sometimes because all he does is use stats. It often contradicts my first impressions, but it definitely keeps me on my toes.

Not bashing those that use stats, am just saying generally, if you need stats to tell you Currys effect on the game, or Boguts' defensive presence then. Stats are helpful, but to me advance stat goes overboard. Too many variables and too many conditions, I watch the game, I watch who is in playing against who, I see match-ups, screens, I see effort, smarts, etc etc.

Jarret Jack is key in this series, just hope he comes out again and plays solid because it is needed.

warriorsstepup wrote:Not bashing those that use stats, am just saying generally, if you need stats to tell you Currys effect on the game, or Boguts' defensive presence then. Stats are helpful, but to me advance stat goes overboard. Too many variables and too many conditions, I watch the game, I watch who is in playing against who, I see match-ups, screens, I see effort, smarts, etc etc.

Jarret Jack is key in this series, just hope he comes out again and plays solid because it is needed.

warriorsstepup wrote:Not bashing those that use stats, am just saying generally, if you need stats to tell you Currys effect on the game, or Boguts' defensive presence then. Stats are helpful, but to me advance stat goes overboard. Too many variables and too many conditions, I watch the game, I watch who is in playing against who, I see match-ups, screens, I see effort, smarts, etc etc.

Jarret Jack is key in this series, just hope he comes out again and plays solid because it is needed.

That is excessive, doesn't tell you match-ups, I don't need to that that far to know what works/what doesn't. Its add use, yes, I am just saying personally I can read the game and understand when I watch to know what works and doesnt.

warriorsstepup wrote:Not bashing those that use stats, am just saying generally, if you need stats to tell you Currys effect on the game, or Boguts' defensive presence then. Stats are helpful, but to me advance stat goes overboard. Too many variables and too many conditions, I watch the game, I watch who is in playing against who, I see match-ups, screens, I see effort, smarts, etc etc.

Jarret Jack is key in this series, just hope he comes out again and plays solid because it is needed.

That is excessive, doesn't tell you match-ups, I don't need to that that far to know what works/what doesn't. Its add use, yes, I am just saying personally I can read the game and understand when I watch to know what works and doesnt.

They have some for match ups too.

And it's not excessive at least if you want to know all this stuff. It might be excessive, just depends on how much time you want to look intoit.

It's why all GM's use synergy. Bosh stopped posting up on the right side because of synergy stats. (or was it the left)

warriorsstepup wrote:Not bashing those that use stats, am just saying generally, if you need stats to tell you Currys effect on the game, or Boguts' defensive presence then. Stats are helpful, but to me advance stat goes overboard. Too many variables and too many conditions, I watch the game, I watch who is in playing against who, I see match-ups, screens, I see effort, smarts, etc etc.

Jarret Jack is key in this series, just hope he comes out again and plays solid because it is needed.

That is excessive, doesn't tell you match-ups, I don't need to that that far to know what works/what doesn't. Its add use, yes, I am just saying personally I can read the game and understand when I watch to know what works and doesnt.

They have some for match ups too.

And it's not excessive at least if you want to know all this stuff. It might be excessive, just depends on how much time you want to look intoit.

It's why all GM's use synergy. Bosh stopped posting up on the right side because of synergy stats. (or was it the left)

Its not whether Jack is good or bad, although that seems to be the debate here. Its about this team and if its willing to, or should, pay the luxury tax (or make it more difficult to get under it) by re-signing Jack to an extension with a raise. Jack has been valuable to this team, but its what he does to make himself valuable that concerns me and thats by taking a lot of shots. Shots that should goto the developing of Harrison Barnes or other key players. Discount it or not, there is a reason why Jack has played for 5 different teams (you can say 7 if you count Toronto and New Orleans twice) in his 7 year career and its not because he was efficient or a star point guard. His value should be defense and leadership off the bench, but very much like Monta, he's a lazy defender who gets beat and just stands there. Like I said, a combo guard that can score are a dime a dozen and could be had for much cheaper than what Jack will be asking for. Thats not to say Jack isn't worth $7M to a team out there, just not to this team.

I think we've all acknowledged that Jack had a career year in a contract season.

The question is: do we panic, resign him for something laughable, and then fry him for regressing (like most sane people know he will) or do we let him test the market and not give in above a certain point?

Those of you claiming we need Jack back no matter what are reminding me of the same people who wanted Dampier back after a great contract season. Jack's not above 40% on threes in his career; he's at 35%. He put up superior PER, eFG%, offensive rating, usage, assist %, and win shares this year than his career norms display. Do you guys honestly think he'll keep that up after he gets paid?

I say let him test the market. I can't see the teams that need a starting PG and would want him. Think he isn't worth more than the money he is on now, like 5 million no more. I'd resign him for that but for no more than three years. He is about 29 years old if I remember right.